Cases 1 - 8 of 8
Steven Anderson v. IDOC Policy Administration Board Members, et al
as 22-35987
Plaintiff / Appellant:
STEVEN ANDERSON
Defendant / Appellee:
IDOC POLICY ADMINISTRATION BOARD MEMBERS, JANE DOE AND JOHN DOE, REN FRENCH and others
Anderson v. IDOC Policy Administration Board Members, et al.
as 1:2022cv00259
Plaintiff:
Steven K Anderson
Defendant:
I.D.O.C. Policy Administration Board, Jane Doe and John Doe, Ren French and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Calvin James Reid v. Bureau of Prisons Employees et al
as 5:2022cv00806
Plaintiff:
Calvin James Reid
Defendant:
Bureau of Prisons Employees, J. Vargas, M. Harden and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Irby v. Skagit County et al
as 2:2018cv01035
Defendant:
Jane, Jane and or John Doe, Skagit County and others
Plaintiff:
Terry Jon Irby
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Brown v. Doe
as 4:2018cv05025
Plaintiff:
Maurice T Brown
Defendant:
Jane and/or John Doe
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
In re Michael Williams
as 3:2012cv01449
Plaintiff:
Michael Williams
Defendant:
A. Sangha, John Doe 1, John Doe 2 and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Richard Thompson v. Unknown Esterline, et al
as 11-17068
Plaintiff - Appellant:
RICHARD LEE THOMPSON, AKA R. L. Thompson, AKA Richard L. Thompson
Defendant - Appellee:
UNKNOWN ESTERLINE, Sergeant, Correctional Officer at ASPC-Florence-SMU I, UNKNOWN EAGLES, Sergeant, Correctional Officer at ASPC-Florence-SMU I and UNKNOWN PARTIES, named as John Doe Officers, Dr. Jane Doe, and John Doe 100 of them, Correctional Officers at ASPC-Florence-SMU I in original complaint
Allee v. Oregon Department of Corrections et al
as 2:2010cv00655
Plaintiff:
Donald Ernest Allee
Defendant:
Mr. Beaumont, Sr., Jane #1 Doe, Jane #2 Doe and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
